Scoring:
Not significant;
Low Significance;
Moderate Significance;
Medium-high Significance;
High Significance;
Exceptional Significance
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
>50 t/ha - Low;
50 - 100 t/ha - Moderate;
>100 t/ha - High
Evidence A: Indeed, the online scoring tool map depicts a rate > 150 t/ha, which shows that the area is highly important for climate mitigation.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
IPLC governance (rights and institutions) not evident;
Project areas are marginally under IPLC governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are partially under IPLC systems of governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are largely under IPLC governance, but IPLC rights and/or institutions face significant constraints;
Project areas are held and managed under IPLC governance systems, with some limitations;
Project areas are held and managed under strong and active IPLC governance systems
Evidence A: No data available in CI database, although the EoI emphasises on a bottom-up approach to address biodiversity and land sovereignty threats. Through work communities, the project will be assisting IPCLs to assert their stories of sovereignty and value their ecological biodiversity and cultural richness. On the other hand, by considering other external sources of information, PNG faces a number of challenges including poor law and order and complex governance arrangements that are worth taking into account for the purpose of the project.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
No explanation given of unique significance to IPLCs;
Significance of site(s) vaguely described;
Unique significance of project site(s) clearly explained
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
No evident threats;
Low threats;
Moderate threats;
Medium-high threats;
High threats;
Requires urgent action
Evidence A: The EoI clearly identifies relevant threats and a current risk assessment is very well developed.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
Legal and policy frameworks in project areas undermine IPLC governance (either actively or through absence);
Legal and policy frameworks recognize limited rights for IPLCs over their lands and/or resources;
Legal and policy frameworks recognize rights over lands and resources but with constraints (e.g., lack implementing regulations);
Legal and policy frameworks actively promote the recognition of IPLC governance
Evidence A: Nevertheless, it seems there is still an issue with the effective implementation of policy frameworks that focus on biodiversity management knowledge and involve IPCLs engagement.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
National or sub-national governments are actively opposed to IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have recognized the importance of IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have implemented some support for IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments are actively engaged in the promotion of IPLC rights and IPLC-led conservation
Evidence A: Several governmental programs are mentioned, demonstrating active engagement in the promotion of IPLC rights and IPLC-led conservation in PNG.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
No IPLC-led conservation initiatives have been implemented;
Few IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented in pilot stages only;
Some IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented beyond pilot stages;
Relevant IPLC-led conservation projects have been well established for many years
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
Few to no complementary projects/investment;
Complementary projects/investments are small, or are tangentially related to project goals;
Complementary Projects/investments align strongly with project goals and investments are substantial
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
Weakly aligned;
Partially aligned;
Well aligned;
Exceptionally well aligned
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:The proposal is built from the ground up experience of working with a diversity of local communities,, with some of this community engagement experience captured in their Participatory Process of Change. The proposal appears to reflect considerable learning from experience of working closely with local community governance and decision-makers, focusing on improving the environmental, social and economic sustainability of these communities. The proposal is strongly focused on helping these communities build their capacity and capabilities to ‘fend for themselves’ in the face of development and other pressures
Scoring:
The objectives and approach for this project lack clarity and cohesion, and/or do not appear to be realistic for the context;
Activities & results defined but logic (Theory of Change) is incomplete;
Activities and results are well-defined and cohesive but some aspects require clarification;
The project has clear objectives and a cohesive approach with relevant activities for the context and timeline
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:The proposal is strongly grounded in long experience of working with these communities, and appears realistic, and achievable, with clear objectives and a set of mutually supportive and reinforcing activities to meet the project’s aims
Scoring:
Objectives and activities do not clearly address identified threats and opportunities;
Contributions to addressing the threats and opportunities are low;
Contributions to addressing threats and enabling conditions are slightly over-ambitious;
The impact on threats and enabling conditions can be realistically accomplished and are sufficiently ambitious for the projects' context
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:As above, although the threats are significant, especially when corruption and illegal activities are not effectively dealt with by government (and worse if they are de facto sanctioned by government!)
Scoring:
Activities/results not aligned with EoI range of investment;
Activities/results Partially aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Well aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Exceptionally well aligned with EoI range of investment
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:The proposed activities are achievable within the proposed budget. The project aims to deepen engagement with their existing communities, and scale up to include many more - to that extent the project can be tailored to available funds (ie more funding, more communities included)
Scoring:
None;
Small;
Moderate;
Significant
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:Precise sources of co-funding are not clear. Current complementary projects have significant funding (Bread for Life USD620,000) but there does not appear to be explicit sources of co-finance identified.
Scoring:
Not provided;
Very Low (below 10,000 Ha);
Moderate (between 100,000 - 500,000 Ha);
High (between 500,000 - 1,000,000 Ha);
Very high above 1,000,000 Ha
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:The proposal identifies 261,500 ha of land and sea would be covered
Scoring:
No provided cultural or livelihood indicators for the project;
Indicators proposed but are not clearly aligned with project goals;
Indicators proposed and are moderately aligned with project goals;
Additional cultural and/or livelihood indicators clearly derive from project goals
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:There is a specific goal of building social enterprises, and the following indicators, clearly derived from the project goals, are proposed: ü 20 new partner communities have strengthened their traditional structures, ecological knowledge and practices. ü 20 new partner communities have identified their most viable sustainable livelihood options and have included their development in their community action plan ü 20 new partner communities have increased their resilience and are promoting self-reliance through community sustainable land use and conservation management to other communities.
Scoring:
Vision for long-term sustainability not provided;
This project does not seem to have a clear long-term impact;
This project will create medium-term benefits for biodiversity and IPLC governance, which future funding will hopefully build upon;
This project will ensure long-term benefits to biodiversity and IPLC systems of governance
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:While there is a strong focus on strengthening governance, building self-reliance in the targeted communities, and improving capacity to resist external development pressures, there will be a continuing need for assistance in resisting these pressures. There is an aim to develop a long-term financing plan, including social enterprise development, this is an objective rather than a plan that is in place.
Scoring:
Contributions not provided;
The project is weakly related to either national priorities;
The project appears to be tangentially related to national priorities;
The proposal reflects an understanding of the national policy priorities and clearly positions the project in relation to those priorities
Evidence A: It is also important to consider key challenges faced by PNG states in the development and implementation of their NBSAPs, which the EoI does not consider.
Evidence B:The proposal explicitly identifies that it will assist in meeting 5 of the 6 NBSAP goals, and contribute to addressing five of the nine climate change related hazards in the PNG INDC.
Scoring:
Gender mainstreaming approach is absent;
Gender mainstreaming approach is weak;
Gender mainstreaming approach is moderately thought through (if there are a few activities as 'add ons');
Significant and well-thought through approach to gender mainstreaming
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:Gender mainstreaming is incorporated into their modus operandi (the Participatory Process of Change). The proponent’s own internal indicators of gender mainstreaming suggest that they ‘walk the talk’
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Low demonstrated potential;
Moderate demonstrated potential;
Medium-high demonstrated potential;
High demonstrated potential;
Exceptional demonstrated potential
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:The proposal is focused on scaling up an existing body of work, experience and network of partner communities, and there is high potential for impact at scale
Scoring:
IPLC appear to be beneficiaries only;
Combination/partnership of IPLC organizations and NGOs, and plans to build IPLC capacity over the project term are clear;
IPLC-led approach, NGOs in more limited, defined roles (such as fiduciary);
Fully IPLC composed and led approach
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:FORCERT is established with support of Greenpeace and WWF, with both organisations being a shareholder in the company. The majority shareholding in FORCERT rests with the combined village enterprises, who receive a share in the FORCERT company once they reach their FSC status.
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Limited demonstration of relevant on-ground leadership;
Demonstrated on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work;
Exceptional and long-standing on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:The organisation has a long history of working with local PNG communities to build their capacity to manage their forests sustainably, developing their participatory process of change through their on-ground experience of working closely with local communities
Scoring:
No partners defined;
No IPLC partners identified;
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners but without clear scope (roles in project design or governance);
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners with clear roles (in project design or governance);
Strong IPLC partnerships that play a central role in design, governance, and implementation of the project;
Strong IPLC partnerships have a central role in design, governance and implementation of the project and linkages with national or regional IPO networks
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:The proponent has 22 local community partners. The project has strong local engagement but the design, governance and drive for the project appears to come primarily from and through the proponent organisation. Implementation however is through on-ground IPLC partners.
Scoring:
No skills demonstrated;
The skills and experiences outlined have little or no relation to the project activities;
There is some lack of clarity or some gaps in the capacities necessary to implement the project;
The activities clearly show how they plan to fill capacity gaps over the course of the project;
They seem to have adequate skills and capacity for the project but do not have experience with GEF projects;
The lead organization and project partners clearly communicate that they have all the skills and experience necessary to implement the project activities. Also, have past experience with GEF funded projects.
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:The proponent has considerable past experience in the project area with staff that have worked for the organisation for many years (an operations manager with them for 13 years and technical adviser for 15 years). They have a focus on indigenous community facilitation (9 facilitators) and have four staff in the Social Enterprise building internal capacity with local employees. The project builds on existing relationships and appears to have a strong foundation to build on, They have UNDP/GEF-funded project experience.
Scoring:
Very limited (no criteria met);
Some capacity but would require support (1/3 criteria);
Moderate capacity (2/3 criteria met);
Very strong (all criteria met) with demonstrated past performance
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:The capacity seems strong, although the one example of a large project (possibly their largest at EUR 225,733) is from 2007-09. They managed a USD 96,981 contract in 2016-17. Current funding sources, and any current co-financing are not specified.
Scoring:
Answered no;
Answered yes but with weak or lacking explanation to the extent;
Answered yes with clear explanation of the extent
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:FORCERT provided a social and environmental impact report for the application for a 2017 CEPF project (found on the internet) but there is no supporting information in the EOI other than YES and the fact they managed two projects in the past (CEPF and the EC)